Environmental mega conferences

Seyfang and Jordan (2002) have identified six core functions which these mega conferences seek to perform;

1. Setting global agendas
2. Facilitating ‘joined-up’ thinking
3. Endorsing common principles
4. Providing global leadership
5. Building institutional capacity
6. Legitimising global governance through inclusivity

Some are more successful than others as discussed below.

Through the aforementioned media attention surrounding these conferences and subsequent public debate and domestic political pressure, environmental issues have not only made it onto the global political agenda but have maintained their position there. They serve in uniting otherwise disconnected issues and UN is probably the only forum where global dimensions of common problems such as sustainable development can be adequately resolved.^[1] For example, the Stockholm conference (the first environmental mega conference) successfully identified the terms of reference of what is now a continuing global environmental debate and fused the simmering conflict between the environment and development.^[1]

Discussing interconnected issues of sustainable development problems on a global scale demands joined-up thinking. Mega conferences offer a forum outside normal short-term political agendas for governments and stakeholders to address wide ranging, integrated issues. In reality, this is difficult to achieve. Their huge scope and all encompassing agenda makes it impossible to “unpick the intricacies”^[18] of sustainable development issues and even in this arena, some aspects, such as trade, remain off the agenda (an issue addressed by the World Trade Organization and World Bank instead). Attempts to achieve joined-up thinking have increased progressively; the issues raised at Rio and Johannesburg were considerably more wide ranging than at Stockholm,^[1] arguably aided by the sustainable development discourse. However, in this quest for comprehensiveness, it is increasingly harder to pull specific issues into focus.^[1]

Environmental mega conferences have been criticised as being little more than high profile, hugely expensive talking shops which give the illusion that the world is changing when it is not.^[19] They have produced so little concrete change due to the voluntary nature of the agreements, the difficulty in monitoring and the lack of follow up regarding compliance.^[1] However, they have produced important and authoritative ‘soft laws’, the halfway stage on the road to legally binding frameworks.^[20] There is the strong expectation of nations adhering to soft laws and that they will become ‘harder’ in the short or long term, more precise and more legally binding.^[21] For example, many principles agreed upon at the Stockholm conference now form the basis of national, regional and EU laws.^[1] This is not that surprising as Stockholm was the first of the mega conferences and was treading new territory; policy makers and governments, now that common principles have been established, are attempting to move onto more definitive detailed action plans.

Mega conferences provide a stage for global leadership. One of the best examples of this is the Agenda 21 agreement evolving from the Rio summit which gave a blueprint for action at lower levels of governance.^[1] The type II partnerships created at WSSD also demonstrate a strong ‘take home’ action plan carrying the weight of global agreement. However, it is questionable how well mega conferences adhere to the subsidiary principle (the idea that problems should be addressed at the lowest effective level of governance).^[1]

The EU, through the integration of the concept of sustainable development in internal and international policies and development strategy, has been able to offer leadership and ‘carry the sustainable development flag on the international scene'.^[22] Many have cited the EU as important actors in providing this leadership.^[23][24] The mega conferences forces the ‘EU policy to interact with other political structures and actors’^[25] and the conversion of ‘soft laws’ into hard EU policies and laws demonstrates leadership that could be replicated in other areas of the world (for example, in the African Union); which would surely be a huge success for future environmental mega conferences.

Past mega conferences addressing a range of issues have led to the creation of new institutional bodies such as the UN, UNEP and the Commission on Sustainable Development. Maurice Strong, who headed the Stockholm conference and an advocate of environmental mega conferences, believes that the ‘process is the policy’;^[26] that mega conferences are ‘one contribution to a much larger process of societal and institutional change, rather that one-off, isolated events’.^[27] Despite the slow pace and continual frustrations that critics highlight, there is inexorable forward movement; they are important yardsticks which domestic pressure groups can use to maintain influence and conference after conference builds a cycle of ever increasing domestic commitment.^[1] However, there are criticisms that these new institutions are weak both financially and legally and calls have been made for them to be vested with far greater legal and administrative powers in order to function better as engines of sustainability.^[28]

Actions taken at mega conferences indirectly build new institutional domestic capacity by creating domestic political opportunity structures.^[1] Policy makers are, for a short while, outside the normal constraints of short term political thinking and can consider other long term environmental issues. Type II partnerships formed at WSSD also put more emphasis on environmental action at the national and sub-national level. Along with the creation of new institutional processes, they offer a move away from global level governance and encourage states to provide a more comprehensive account of their own national sustainable development strategies.^[1] For example, following the Stockholm conference (UNCHE) European leaders met in Paris at an environmental conference and regional inter-governmental meetings were also convened.^[1] Environmental mega conferences do not specifically generate national level governance but this was encouraged through the emphasis on the ‘commonality of national purpose’.^[29] It has been claimed that national environment ministries have gained the most from mega conferences of this nature.^[1]

As discussed above, environmental mega conferences have a wide range of participants. Through this participation comes legitimacy as more people are involved with the decision making process and so buy into any decisions made. There are still criticisms that they fail to capture grassroots debate about sustainable development and that only the well resourced, large interest groups are able to attain a seat at the table with smaller groups remaining outside the formal decision-making process.^[1] Despite this the increased numbers of participants throughout the evolution of environmental mega conferences are encouraging. NGO involvement has grown from 134 in Stockholm (a tenth of which were from developing countries) to over 1400 in Rio (a third of which originated in developing countries).^[30]

Informal, ‘fringe’ discussions, external to the main event, also take place, with 17,000 attendees in Rio. They firstly help NGOs to appreciate their different perspectives and agendas and to confront the difficulties of collaboration across lines of language, culture, and wealth; and secondly, provide an international platform and stature for many organizations that are ignored, starved of resources, or actively oppressed in their countries.^[30] Finally, the internet is the new method for the expansion of public and stakeholder participation. In the buildup to Johannesburg, individuals could participate via websites such as the UK government’s Sustainable Development website. Rio+20 (to be held in 2012) has websites to which major groups and stakeholders can contribute and use to get involved in the preparatory process as well as links with Facebook and Twitter. In the UK, ‘e-petitions’ were launched in August 2011 which enable the public to create and sign online petitions on topics to be discussed in the House of Commons. This online community may well be used further in future to increase participation and therefore legitimacy.

The process of governing the global environment and its sustainability issues at a cooperative global level is arguably a romantic notion. It has been said that nations, policy makers and stakeholders are operating within a restrictive framework with incoherent internal policies.^[31] Further critics state that summits such as these painfully highlight inactivity and/or the inability to fundamentally change lives of the poor or act decisively on climate change.^[14] It may be that environmental mega conferences have served their purpose in boosting environmental issues onto the global agenda and now voluntary, bi-laterally agreed partnerships and domestic policies can take the reins, rendering high level multilateral summits obsolete. On the other hand, advocates conclude that they still serve an important function in contemporary governance, even though they are not the panaceas that some had originally hoped they might be.^[2] Furthermore, if determined activists organise their campaign and demand to be heard, it is possible that this sort of pressure has the potential to keep the cycle of environmental mega conferences alive.